Equal Opportunities Work - Theories about Practice

Equal Opportunities Work 

GOTEBORG UNIVERSITY 2OO2 

ii,ii j,ili.i:ri;:;.i.r';,i,;rl:, 

i'i'",:":,';,1;,t,;,:::'.i'rt: 

1'1,;,iji; 

i:. , ,-l1,,, ;.l,1,; i ,,11 ;;1,;;;;;.,,;,;it,t , 

,. 1,''. ;:,, ; :' i,., r, :' ;;=,;, :',L.t,:,r'.: i,;, 

;1, ;,; ;, 

1.,1 ;:.:,, 

i :::;::':i 

ii.: i';, i i,:; 1 

:,. :,,, 

i.it,,i 1;,: ; 

;:,;,::; ,;;,:t,',i:1i ,,,:,;;t,t,,',,t,,,,,' ,',,1i,,, r,:',,' ,, 

',i,.t t , ,r.,i, :,,,r;,:it.,;:;;;.;;;.;;::::,11, 

;;1, , ' 

',',,,, 1i,t, . l'. '.,.,,;.-.-,i', i, 

.;,'.i;', 

cOrpsoRc 

UNIVERSITY

Printed in Sweden 

Elanders Graphic Systems AB 2002

Equal Opportunities Work 

Theories about Practice 

By Eua Mark 

GOTEBoRG UNIVERSITY 2OO2

Foreword ............ ............r. ...........2 

Working for equal opportunities, fair treatment and quality........ 4 

1. Introduction............ ...............4 

2. Arguments put forward by the Swedish national authorities in favor of an equal 

opportunities policy ............4 

3. Working for equal opportunities.............. .................7 

4. Equal opportunities work as a matter of quality ........................ S 

5. Equal opportunities, quality and the male norm ...................... 10 

6. Equal opportunities work and the differences between the sexes 

7. Equal opportunities as a matter of justice... 

t2 

t7 

The gender perspective and equal opportunities work................. 20 

1. Introduction............ ..........20 

2. The gender perspective, research quality and equal opportunities..............................22 

3. Gender research, awareness of sex and gender and education ............ ......29 

Sexual harassment and equal opportunities work........................,32 

1. Introduction............ .............32 

2. Theory and practice................ ...............32 

3. What is sexual harassment?............... ......................33 

4. Sexuallv offensive behavior... ................35 

5. Equal opportunities work and the |aw............. ..........37 

6. Sexual harassment and the gender perspective ......40 

7. Power in the structural and phenomenological senses .............41 

8. Gender. socialization and autonomy. 43

Foreword 

What makes equal opportunities work so difficult to accomplish? The answer, of 

course, has to do with various kinds of resistance and exercising of power. But 

effective, efficient equal opportunities work also requires clear thinking. I hope 

this text might contribute to dispelling some confusion. 

It is difficult to pursue equal opportunities work today for many reasons, 

including the fact that the terms and concepts used are vague and require 

clearer definitions, and that the arguments put forward tend not to be 

sufficiently well thought-through and that traditional arguments may be 

repeated without critical consideration. This text attempts to sharpen the terms 

and the arguments, taking equal opportunities work in practice as its point of 

departure. If we are to work effectively in the area of equality of opportunity 

we do need to think about it more clearly. However, that will not be sufficient 

in itself. 

The notions and arguments analyzed below were taken from two fields of 

practical work with equal opportunities - the political and the organizational. 

As the title implies, this text proposes theories about what practitioners are 

doing. All such terms and ways of reasoning are, of course, national by nature, 

and must be seen in their respective contexts. In our increasingly globalized 

world, we must also learn to consider our national phenomena in an 

international perspective. This helps us to understand them more thoroughly. 

This text has been translated from Swedish into English in hopes of triggering 

a dialogue on equal opportunities work in an international context. 

Studies of universities and other institutes of higher education have confirmed 

the notion that they are "bastions of masculinity". A number of efforts have been 

made to produce policies promoting equal opportunities between women and 

men, with a view to counteracting this situation. These policies have focused on 

bringing about institutional reform and achieving organizations where greater 

equality prevails. 

However, progress in this area is slow, and today our universities and 

institutes of higher education are still anything but models of equality. What 

can we do, in reality, to bring about changes so our organizations better reflect 

equal opportunities? What should our action plans contain, and how should

esponsibilities be delegated? The time has come to make a critical 

examination of different ways of pursuing equal opportunities, and to debate 

how we should work in this field. We need to know more about the various 

interpretations of the problem complex surrounding equality, about different 

perspectives on the impediments to equality within organizations, about the 

different ways in which efforts to achieve equal opportunities between women 

and men have been institutionalized at universities and institutes of higher 

education, and about what measures need to be taken so that existing policies 

produce results. 

One of the aims of this booklet is to begin building up a theoretical 

foundation for work in the area of equal opportunities, to draw up theories on 

the basis of a survey of practices. I hope that these theories will provide a 

justification for the implementing of strategic measures, which should, in turn, 

provide greater opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This, in turn, 

should motivate both sexes to participate in further work to promote equality. 

Another aim underlying this booklet is to produce a constructive analysis of 

the contradictions in the information available in official (Swedish 

government) publications on the subject of equal opportunities between 

women and men. 

I wish to stress that this text is not an attempt to draw up a specific equal 

opportunities policy. Rather, it is my aspiration to provide material for 

discussion, useful as a tool in furthering equal opportunities work at the 

reader's own level. Such discussions must always be rooted in practical 

experience, and this experience may also serve as implicit arguments.

Working for equal opportunities, fair treatment and quality 

1. Introduction 

Why should any organizatton put effort into improving its equal opportunities 

policy? Simply in order to comply with the legislation? Out of a desire to 

abolish prevailing injustices? As part of an overall reform and development 

program for the organization in question? 

It is crucial that everyone involved in work with equal opportunities policy 

think through personal answers to those questions. In fact, doing so is a 

prerequisite to being able to accomplish anything in relation to those efforts. 

This is true not least because working with equality issues often implies having 

one's views subjected to skeptical scrutiny. This makes it all the more 

important to be able to motivate what we are doing, for ourselves and others. 

This presentation is based on a description of how equal opportunities 

policies are justified by the powers that be in Sweden. We examine their 

argumentation, highlight their hidden agendas and assumptions, and examine 

different possible interpretations. The aim of this booklet is to provide a 

platform for discussion of why any organization should put time and energy 

into developing and pursuing an equal opportunities policy. 

2. Arguments put forward by the Swedish national authorities in favor of 

an equal opportunities policy 

A Swedish government document entitled Jiimstrilldhetspolitiken ( "F;qual 

Opportunity Policy " 1996/97:41) states the following objectives for an equal 

opportunities policy: 

The objectives for an equal opportunities policy have been 

established. They are that women and men are to have the same 

options, rights and obligations in all the significant spheres of human 

life. An even distribution of power and influence between women and 

men also means that they should have the same potential for financial 

independence, and be subject to the same terms and conditions with 

regard to entrepreneurship, employment and working life, as well as 

the same opportunities for further training and skill enhancement at 

I

work. It also means equal access to education, and possibilities for 

self-fulfillment, pursuing interests and talents, and sharing 

responsibility for the home and children, as well as the absence of 

sexualized (sex/gender-related) violence in their lives.r 

The overarching motivation underlying this equal opportunities policy is thus 

justice -- fair treatment -- and its main points of departure are: the prevailing 

imbalance of power between women and men, the imbalance between them with 

regard to financial independence, and the imbalance between them with regard 

to responsibility for children and the home. The aim is to achieve a structural 

transformation of society, includes a redistribution of rights and obligations in 

favor of the underrepresented sex would take place. The need for this 

transformation is based on insights regarding the different living conditions that 

apply to men and women today: a picture of society reflecting a division by 

sexes. 

The justice-based argument for equal opportunities is underpinned in 

another way by the powers that be in their formulation of the application of 

equal opportunities to comprehensive school education. A report from the 

Ministry of Education on equal opportunities states: 

Equal opportunities at school means that girls and boys are to have 

equivalent terms and conditions to discover, test and develop their full 

potential as human beings. For this to be possible, knowledge must be 

made available as to the differences and similarities between the 

sexes, and as to the impact of sex role affiliation on education.2 

In this context, equal opportunities are seen as meaning that both sexes have an 

equal chance to develop their human potential. A prime prerequisite for equal 

opportunities at school is a deeper understanding of the impact of sex role 

affiliation, and its pedagogical consequences for the individual. Thus equal 

opportunities become both a subject for study, and a matter for consideration in 

terms of teaching methods.3 Once again, the prime mover is justice, but with a 

1 Swedish government circular 1996197:41 Jiimstiilldhetspolitiken,("Equal Opportunities Policy", p. 5). See also 

Draft bill 1993194:147 Delad makt, delat ansvar ("Shared Power, Shared Responsibility"), Government circular 

l999l2O0O:24 Jtimstiilldhetspolitiken infdr 2000talet, ('Equat Opportunities Policy Entering the Twenty-First 

Century", p. 6). 

2 Offi.iul communication from government ministries 1994:98 Vi iir alla olika, ("We'reAll Different," p. 20). 

" This view is repeated in the draft bill:1994/95:164 Jtimsttilldhet mellan kvinnor och mrin inom 

utbildningsomrddet, ("Equal Opportunities Between Women and Men in the Field of Education, p. l2).

substantially different argument in terms of comprehensive schooling than in 

other areas of society. 

It should be clear from the above both that the Swedish authorities' view of 

equal opportunities in public education is based on the assumption that there 

are fundamental differences between the sexes, and also that this view is at 

least somewhat differently motivated than the general justification for an equal 

opportunities policy. In the general policy, the focus is more at the structural 

level. But when it comes to equal opportunities at school, the focus is 

completely individual. 

In the discussion pursued by the Swedish authorities of equal opportunities 

at universities and institutes of higher education, a third justification for an 

equal opportunities policy arises. There, it is seen not only as a democratic 

right, and thus a matter of justice, but also as a matter of quality. Briefly: 

having an equal opportunities policy is a means of improving quality.a 

What this means, concretely, in the sphere of higher education, is that 

working for equal opportunities is said to improve the quality of scientific, 

scholarly and educational performance.5 Efforts being made in terms of equal 

opportunities are also to be included when the Swedish National Agency for 

Higher Education makes quality assessments. This makes equal opportunities 

work justifiable not only from the point of view of justice, but also of costbenefit.6 

How, then, should equal opportunities work be justified within any 

organization? As we have seen, the two main arguments of the Swedish 

authorities are the justice argument and the quality argument. What differences 

result when each of these arguments is implemented? What do discussions 

about equal opportunities policies actually mean in relation to quality? Isn't the 

justice argument sufficient in itself? 

4 Equal opportunities work as a quality issue is one of the main themes of the final report from the 

"JAST" 

group (the Working Group on Equal Opportunities in Higher Education and Research. See Official 

communication from government ministries 1997:56 Jiimstiilldhet ft)r kunskap, insikt och kvalitet ("Equal 

opportunities for knowledge, insights and quality". Further, see Official communication from government 

ministries 1994:l3O Kaftlciggning och utviirdering av jiimstiilldhetsprojekt inom universitet och hdgskolor 

("Surveying and Assessing the Quality of Equal Opportunities Projects at Universities and Other Institutes of 

Higher Education", pp. l -15). 

5 Offi.iul communication from government ministrie s 1997.56 Jrimsttiltdhet fbr kunskap, insikt och kvalitet, 

("Equal Opportunities for Knowledge, Insights and Quality". p.100). 

6 One additional way ofjustifying work for equal opportunities from a cost-benefit point of view is to clarify 

that equal opportunities work is profitbearing. See report from Nutek (the Swedish National Board for Industrial 

and Technical Development) 1999: 19 Jcimstrilldhet & linsamhet (Equal Opportunities and Profitability'). This 

particular argument for equal opportunities work falls beyond the scope ofthis article.

3. Working for equal opportunities 

Before going into the details of and discussing the different arguments for equal 

opportunities, let us examine how work for equal opportunities is pursued. In the 

Swedish government commission report on equal opportunities, different 

approaches are described. 

One is implementing active measures to ensure that all existing 

organizations comply fully with the Equal Opportunities Act. Another is 

regarding equal opportunities work as one aspect of the vital changes that need 

to be brought about in organizations, with a view to making each workplace a 

fairer place, and to improving quality. 

In the first case, the structure of each existing organization is taken as a 

given, as the basis from which change may be achieved. For instance, one 

ambition might be to increase the representation of the underrepresented sex in 

management or leadership positions, but without calling the traditional role of 

the management into questionT. The second case is more idyllic or utopian, and 

sees equal opportunities as one of the things that could characteri ze a more 

perfect organization, i.e. that it would acknowledge the equal right to existence 

of both sexes. 

In other words, we must distinguish between efforts to increase equality of 

opportunity for both sexes within the framework of existing society, and 

efforts to achieve equality of opportunity in a future, but presently non-existent 

society, with a different paradigm of values relating to sex and gender. In the 

first case, working for equal opportunities often implies adapting women to the 

world of men, and marginalizing "female experience". Society is being guided 

in a male direction, and male thinking is what determines what aims and 

positions are worth striving for. The way of life of men is regarded as the 

general, gender-neutral norm. One pertinent example is the way girls and 

women are encouraged to adapt and to apply for admission to programs in 

technology. 

.| ' It is necessary to distinguish between increased representation, in numbers, of the underrepresented sex, and 

the distribution of the underrepresented sex in the organizational hierarchy. Better representation of the 

underrepresented sex may reflect the intention and desire ofthe organization to create even distribution of 

women and men, while the distribution of the underrepresented sex in the organizational hierarchy reflects the 

representation of women and men at different levels in the organization, and thus reflects career potential. The 

recruitment policy of an organization may reflect equal opportunities, but still not enable womenand men to 

climb the career ladder equally. See report from Nutek (the Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical 

Development) 1999:19 Jiimstiilldhet & Ldnsamhet (Equal Opportunities and Profitability").

There has long been strong emphasis on education, preferably in 

technology or the natural sciences, in order to fulfill the needs of trade 

and industry. Substantial resources have also been invested in 

persuading girls and young women to make "non-traditional" choices 

in terms of what they would study. such campaigns have been 

described as a way of promoting equal opportunities. At the same 

time, a large number of other areas of competence in which women 

have traditionally been dominant, have ceased to be considered 

important enough to be worth studying. Nor have there been nearly as 

many drives to encourage young men to make non-traditional 

choices.8 

Thus it becomes clear that working for a utopian kind of equal opportunities 

means touching on fundamental organizational changes, focusing on new, nontraditional 

norns and patterns evolving from the experience and conditions of 

life of both women and men. 

This requires fundamental change, not just increasing the numbers of the 

underrepresented sex in any existing organization or the value of female ideas 

in a structure defined by men, or enabling the underrepresented sex to more 

easily be promoted to high positions in an existing organization. 

who benefits from efforts to improve equality of opportunity? The 

underrepresented sex? Everyone in an organization? Although there is no 

question that a majority of the underrepresented sex, the sex that may be 

subject to harassment or discrimination, is in favor of such work, there are 

strong arguments for the idea that equal opportunities work can benefit 

everyone working at an organization. Seen in this way, equal opportunities 

work is one aspect of change, contributing to making new, different 

organizations that are better for both women and men. 

4. Equal opportunities work as a matter of quality 

What arguments can be put forward for equal opportunities? Various kinds of 

quality arguments are often used in this context, so let us examine them. They 

give rise to the following type of questions:'Does the assertion hold water that 

working for equal opportunities is one aspect of quality development at a 

university? Can efforts to achieve equality of collaboration between women and 

men really improve the quality of the work carried out at an organization? After 

8 Gunne.ud, E., & Werners son, Vad lever vi fi)r? Om jcimstciltdhet som frihet eller ndng,SOU (Swedish 

Government Commission Report 1997:158, p. 106 What are We Living for? On Equal Opportunities as Freedom 

or Coercion")

examining these issues, we move on to equal opportunities as a matter of 

justice.e 

To begin with the concept of "quality" is defined in different ways: 

L Quality in the descriptive, value-judgmental sense. Attributing quality to 

something may be an expression of a value judgment, an assessment of 

something, be it an object or a phenomenon or an individual, on a given 

scale of values. In everyday speech, we speak of things as being of good 

or poor quality, and use words like "quality improvement,', etc. 

2. Quality in the sense of a characteristic of things or processes. 

3. Primary and secondary qualities. Philosophers distinguish between 

primary and secondary qualities. Democritos (500 B.C.) was the first 

philosopher to distinguish between regarding characteristics as being 

inherent to the thing itsell or primary, and dependent for their existence 

on a subjective comprehension of the thing, or secondary. Primary 

characteristics include scope, strength, movement and size, white 

secondary characteristics include color, sound, smell and taste. Secondary 

characteristics have a subjective existence, and come into being in our 

consciousness as a result of the interplay between the primary 

characteristics of the thing and our organs of sensory perception. 

So if we assume that equal opportunities work in an organization is part of the 

quality development work of that organization, what are we implying that the 

equal opportunities work is meant to contribute to developing? 

Considering quality in the value-judgmental sense, one relevant answer to 

that question would be that it is the quality of whatever the organization 

produces that is meant to be improved. Universities and institutes of higher 

education produce cumulative products: spoken or written processes. In other 

words, it is the quality of these processes that is to be improved. In addition to 

which there is quality improvement in the organization itself, such as improved 

management. 

Thus we are dealing with quality in the sense of positive evaluations and of 

the characteristics of a process. What characteristics are we talking about? The 

fundamental thought is that the perspective that includes the views of both 

sexes is better than a single-sex perspective. The experience of both sexes is to 

be drawn upon, and this will generate more issues and more potential solutions 

to problems, as well as taking the values of both women and men into account 

9 In ty view, it is essential not to be misted by the discussion on quality, and thus to neglect the link between 

equal opportunities and justice. The cost-benefit argument must not be allowed to gain the upper hand, at the 

expense of respect for basic human values. What value would the cost-benefit argument have in a recession? 

t0

and promoting a critical stance. Quite simply, equality of opportunities gives 

rise to a creative climate, and one that encourages learning. Equality of 

opportunities also has a pedagogical dimension. Good teaching is teaching that 

is able to integrate new experience, and add new knowledge to the existing 

worldview. For this reason, it is vital for the students to be able to relate what 

they are being taught to themselves and their own experience. And for this to 

be possible, the experience of both sexes must somehow be present in the 

teaching situation. 

Another quality-related argument is referred to as the "argument for the 

talent repository". Work with equal opportunities generates additional qualityraising 

features in that it means additional competence. If both sexes a.re 

permitted to work and operate on equal terms in the organization, it draws on 

the talent repository of the underrepresented sex that remains latent in 

organizations where equal opportunities do not prevail. Thus the quality level 

of the knowledge process is raised. If everyone involved in a creative process 

is aware of the perspective of both sexes, the quality of the process improves. 

Moreover, more individuals in the organization will be acknowledged as 

possessing useful talents. 

5. Equal opportunities, quality and the male norm 

It is necessary to justify equal opportunities work in other ways than in relation 

to justice, because privileged groups tend to obstruct redistribution or reequilibration 

of power. 

Seeing work for equal opportunities as a process that improves the quality of 

research and education provides utility arguments for such work being 

important and being a matter relevant to all the members of an organization. In 

other words, achieving equality between women and men is not only desirable 

for the underrepresented sex, the sex that is being infringed upon or 

discriminated against. It is not in the interest of any specific group, but in the 

interest of all. We would like to believe that true equality of opportunity is of 

benefit to all, for instance in that it improves the atmosphere at the workplace, 

and makes it both more creative and more dvnamic. l0 

l0 Equul opportunities are a matter ofboth give and take. A society characterized by equal opportunities 

assumes that both women and men are prepared to refrain from power and privilege. For instance, women will 

have to divest themselves of power in the home so that men can take their share, and men will have to be 

prepared to refrain from some power and influence in both working life and politics so that women can take their 

share: In these two cases, however, the kinds ofpower in question are different and cannot immediately be 

compared. 

1l

Certainly, this makes the quality argument seductive at first glance. But one 

obvious question is: why do we still have an imbalance of power, working 

duties and perspectives if equality of opportunity would raise the quality of our 

workplaces? 

Quality arguments are not as self-evident in the context of equal 

opportunities as they are often made out to be. We have seen that quality 

assessments are based on values. What values? Whose? Values that have long 

been regarded as part of the male nonn have governed our societies, and thus 

there is a clear risk that the definition of quality on which quality assessments 

are based will be a "male" one. In that case, high quality would mean whatever 

worked to the benefit of the perspective of the powers that be. 

We might say of quality as is said of beauty, that it is in the eye of the 

beholder. Because male values have long been the norm, the concept 

of quality has also been defined on male terms. People in positions of 

power generally consider it a safeguard of high quality that their own 

definition of quality be the accepted one. As most decision-makers are 

men, male values are thus upheld.ll 

This insight may be associated with the difference between primary and 

secondary qualities presented above. We found there that secondary qualities 

have subjective existences, contingent upon our way of perceiving phenomena 

in the world around us. 

Let us apply a subjectivist view of values: values are an expression of a 

subjective attitude belonging to the subject. The idea that values are subjective 

and attributed to occurrences is at the core of the discussion about equal 

opportunities work as a quality issue, because it contains a clear risk -- that all 

the talk about quality is actually judgments pronounced by a party with a 

vested interest, and based on subjective assessments and on the male nonn. 

If, without thinking the matter through, we allow equal opportunities work 

to be part of general quality improvement work, without being responsive to 

the fact that high quality is often defined in a way that favors the perspective of 

the powers that be, what we are actually doing is promoting a situation in 

which diversity is being reduced, and a single-gender interpretative privilege is 

being further consolidated. We have seen how arguing that equal opportunities 

have a quality-promoting effect on the operations of the organization as a 

1l Offi.iul communication from government ministries 1997:56 Jiimstrilldhet fdr kunskap, insikt och kvalitet, 

("Equal Opportunities for Knowledge, Insight and Quality" p. 34.) 

72

whole is one way of justifying work for equal opportunities, but if this way of 

reasoning is to have any other effect than to uphold the existing absence of 

equal opportunities, one qualification must be added: the content of the 

organization must already bear traces of two sexes. 

The claim that equal opportunities improve quality in the sense of providing 

an increased diversity of perspective, views on knowledge, research disciplines 

and competence rests on the assumption that power is already reasonably 

evenly distributed between women and men, and that this fairer delegation of 

power has had an impact on the organization. 

6. Equal opportunities work and the differences between the sexes 

The equating, on the part of the Swedish national authorities, of equal 

opportunities and quality improvements rests on yet another, not nearly so 

obvious premise: the assumption that women and men are essentially different.l2 

This is expressed in different ways. One example is the assumption that female 

leadership is qualitatively different from that of men.r3 Another is that the kind 

of experience and perspectives women represent differs from that represented by 

men. 

Should successful pursuit of equality of opportunity be based on the 

similarities or the differences between women and men? The answer to this 

question is that it is logically possible to base equal opportunities work on 

other assumptions. Moreover, there is a link between the arguments we prefer 

and our choice with regard to whether we see the similarities or the differences 

between the sexes as uppermost. 

The expression "equality" readily leads us to think that in order for equality 

to be possible, people must already be equal. And there may be more than a 

grain of truth to that thought. Women and men both belong to the species 

"human being", rather than 

"animal", &S Aristotle pointed out. Their very 

humanity endows them with a common value; they are thinking, feeling, 

acting, self-conscious beings. Equality, in the sense of equality between the 

sexes, may be justified on this account. 

12 thi, can be further divided both empirically and normatively. There is a difference berween the idea that 

women and men are different and that women and men should be different. 

l3 Cun *" know what female management style is? Are there not too few women in managerial positions for 

them to have been able to formulate their own kind of leadership? See Wahl, A., Ftiretagsi-edning som 

konstruktion av manlighet, Kvinnovetensl

But equal opportunities are also compatible with the assumption that there 

are fundamental differences between the sexes: women and men are different 

but have equal value and are to have the same rights and obligations. Thus 

working for equal opportunities can also be motivated on basis of the need to 

respect our differences. la 

Returning to the arguments for equal opportunities put forward by the 

Swedish authorities, we can see a link with the assumption that the sexes are 

different. Basically, Swedish equal opportunities policy is rooted in the 

assumption that there are fundamental differences between women and men in 

that they live under different terms and conditions of existence. For instance, 

women have substantially less power, social influence and financial 

independence. Here, the differences between the sexes are described in tenns 

of their factual situations. Women and men live in different spheres of 

economic and social reality. 

When the national authorities argue for equal opportunities at school, the 

assumption that the sexes are different takes on a slightly different meaning. 

There, it is assumed that boys and girls, men and women, are different by 

"nature"l5, and they have the right to be treated someone differently, because 

of these differences in their "natures". 

In the first case, when differences between the sexes are described 

in terms 

of factual circumstances and living conditions, the aim of working for equal 

opportunities is expressed as a "striving for likeness" and equal rights and 

status. Ideally, the sexes should live under equivalent conditions, meaning 

"shared power and shared responsibility" which, appropriately, was the title of 

the Swedish government's draft bill on equal opportunities policy, put for ward 

in 199311994. 

In the other case, however, when it is assumed that the differences between 

the sexes are explained by their being different by nature, equality of 

opportunity is about respecting the dffirences in ways such as knowing about 

and using the difference between the sexes so that girls and boys can be given 

the educational stimuli they require. 

14 Th"." are at least two problem complexes here: 

l. What is the basis of this difference? Is it ontological, or the result of social construction, or a combination? 

2. How is this difference described? Is the female described as a deviation from the male norm? 

15 I huu" found it difficult to describe this thought exactly and adequately. Using the term 

"nature" brings to 

mind something based in biology. Speaking of human nature in sense of a social construction is inappropriate 

because the basic ring to the term is biological. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to take a stand on 

whether sex is biological or socially constructed. 

r4

A third variation on the theme of equal opportunities work as a quality issue 

is sometimes also raised. This is that our sexual affiliation has an impact on 

our experience, ways of thinking, and ideals. The consequence is that men and 

women develop different perspectives, and think differently. And if these 

differences are allowed to interact in a fertile, dynamic process, creativity in 

the formation and transfer of knowledge will be promoted. 

In one sense, it is unproblematic to address the differences between the 

sexes as factual differences. Society is not permeated by equality today, these 

differences exist and have been proven time and again. Generally speaking, the 

aim of all efforts to achieve equality of opportunity is that women and men 

should have the same rights, obligations and options in their private lives, in 

their family situations, and professionally. This is a formal enunciation of 

equal opportunities, and, with a view to achieving it, many formal obstacles 

have also been abolished through legislation and explicit political efforts. But 

the indisputable fact remains: our society is far from equal. For this reason, it 

is essential to stress that men and women are not only meant to have the same 

rights, but also the same access to these formal rights, and that men must 

become aware of both the explicit and the implicit strategies that counteract 

equal opportunities. 

However, equal opportunities policies often rest on the unspoken premise 

that women should live as men have been living, that a society permeated by 

equality will be a society where the living conditions of women are similar to 

the living conditions of men today. From a political point of view, for 

example, it has been regarded as more important to get women onto the labor 

market than to get men to stay home and look after the children. Once again, 

the male norrn has been taken for granted, as a kind of gender-neutral truism. 

In the field of education, equal opportunities have been linked to the 

differences between the sexes, with girls being assumed to be different by 

nature from boys, and women being assumed to be different by nature from 

men, being assumed to be different by nature and therefore to have the right to 

different treatment in school, each being approached on the basis of his or her 

respective prerequisites. In this light, an understanding of the differences 

between the sexes and the pedagogical consequences of these differences are 

seen to be necessary to working for equal opportunities. 

Another point of departure for regarding working for equal opportunities as 

part of the general quality development work at any organization is that there 

are fundamental differences between the sexes in life experience and ways of 

thinking. The quality discussion is based on the idea that the two sexes are 

I5

complementary, and can bring different things to a workplace. (Here, there is 

an undertone of social construction, a hint that our sexual affiliation results in 

our encountering different attitudes and thus being shaped by different 

experience). 

The government level debate on equal opportunities is thus intimately 

intertwined with various assumptions about the differences between the sexes. 

How, then, are we to see the relationship between equal opportunities work 

and the issue of the similarities and differences between the sexes? 

To begin with, let us state that both the justice and the quality arguments 

may be based on assumptions either of inherent similarity or difference 

between the sexes. 

If we begin with justice, we may point out the similarity between the sexes, 

we may even call descriptions of difference mythologizing. This would 

indicate that there are no differences between the sexes, and that they must 

therefore have equal rights. However, this argument is associated with the risk 

that the underrepresented sex will be forced into the same traps as the other. 

It is equally possible to argue for equal opportunities as a matter of justice 

by highlighting the differences between the sexes and simultaneously 

demanding that they be regarded as of equal value, and have equal rights. 

However, there are also risks associated with seeing equality of opportunity as 

meaning respect for differences between the sexes, as this may lead to freezing 

stereotypical gender roles into place. Claming that it is important to be 

responsive to each individual may result in locking both sexes into their own 

respective traps, and inhibiting individuals from crossing traditional genderrelated 

boundaries. The sexes are different, and, it is understood, should 

remain so. 

As we have seen, the discussion of quality is based mainly on the idea that 

the sexes are different. It is, though, perfectly possible to construct a quality 

argument on the basis of the similarity between the sexes. The "talent 

repository" argument is one such example. 

We have seen that the assumptions both of similarity and of difference 

between the sexes may be used to justify equal opportunities work. In my 

opinion, both these views lead to restricted freedom of choice for both women 

and men. 

Another way of seeing equal opportunities work is to see it as primarily a 

matter of the freedom and rights of the individual to choose a lifestyle, to 

T6

define him or herself.r6 In line with this view, equal opportunities work 

provides individuals of both sexes with greater opportunities for self-fulfillment, 

not because they are valued either differently or similarly, in accordance with 

patriarchal patterns, but by having greater freedom to test sides of themselves 

and to experiment in life. A society permeated by equal opportunities is a 

society that allows different people to have different extents of personal 

masculinity and femininity, and to have the freedom to create their own 

personal way of life. 

16 Gunn"rud, E., & Wernersson, Vad lever vi frir? Om jiimstalldhet som frihet eller tving, SOU 1997:158, s. 

106. (Swedish Government Commission Report 1997:158, p. 106 (What are We Living for? On Equal 

Opportunities as Freedom or Coercion"). 

T7

7. Equal opportunities as a matter of justice 

What are the implications of seeing equal opportunities work as a matter of 

justice? This question is addressed below, the point of departure being that 

working for equality of opportunity means aiming to increase the freedom of 

self-definition of each individual. This gives rise to the corollary question: what 

is the relationship between equal opportunities, justice and personal freedom? 

It is a basic tenet of liberalism that there is a relationship between justice 

and freedom. On the one hand, we have the inviolable right of the individual to 

free choice in matters of life and living. The freedom to manage one's own life 

is a fundamental freedom, but the state may also have the right to restrict this 

freedom. On what grounds? Examples often used are when the rights of one 

individual violate those of another. or when an individual voluntarily waives 

certain rights. 

One way of describing justice is to call it the free right of an individual to 

choose a course of action. Naturally, this right is bound by certain limitations, 

such as that this choice must not violate the basic rights of others. Justice and 

respect for an individual's freedom of choice with regard to course of action 

are thus interlinked with the rights of all individuals to freely fulfill 

themselves. 

Let us go on to assume that the aim of equal opportunities work is to 

increase the freedom of the individual. What does that mean?r1 A human being 

is an agent, a thinking, feeling and acting being, who acts in a context. In 

thinking, feeling and acting, we are constantly relating to the world around us. 

As agents, we are beings in the world, we exist in situations that determine our 

actions to some extent, and restrict their potential, as well as the extent to 

which we are self-determining. 

We possess a certain amount of freedom and we are "relatively" selfdetermining 

beings. But if we return to the idea that we act in a context, it 

becomes clear that we are only "relatively" free and only "relatively" selfdetermining. 

Self-determining actions are also contingent on things beyond the 

control of the agent. Take an example as simple as the fact that we require 

opportunities. We are able to act with self-determination, but in order to 

exercise this ability, the opportunities and circumstances must be such that we 

are able to utilize our capacities to the fullest. Beyond this, many of our self- 

17 B.lo*, I use an individual perspective, rather than discussing the relationship between the agent and his or 

her fellow human beings. Increased freedom for one agent may, ofcourse, mean reduced freedom for another. 

18

determined decisions cannot be implemented owing to circumstances beyond 

our control. 

In our capacities as acting beings, we make different life choices, we weight 

up different courses of action against one another and decide how we will act. 

Or we may throw ourselves headlong and without much reflection into a 

course of action. Alternately, forces we neither know of nor believe we possess 

may subconsciously guide us. 

The freedom to create oneself is, of course, also relative to a given context. 

Our environment shapes us, our social circumstances, our societal situation, 

but we also shape ourselves. We cannot choose to be absolutely anything at all, 

because the context in which we live does not permit a full range of choices. 

Neither, however, are we predestined to be a certain way, but we do have a 

certain scope of freedom of choice to create and recreate ourselves. The aim is 

to be able to affirm different sides of ourselves, and allow these sides to crossfertilize. 

So what does all this talk of greater freedom actually mean? One way of 

describing greater freedom is simply to say that the individual has more 

options. The more choices I have, the freer I am. Equality of opportunity in an 

organization may be seen as one way of increasing the number of options 

available to those working there. Let us link this to the difference between 

thinking about equal opportunities work in existing and in hypothetical future 

otganizations. There is a major difference between working to have the 

underrepresented sex given greater freedom of choice in an existing structure, 

an actual organization, and working to ensure that in a future, not yet existing 

organization, both sexes will have more options available to them. This future 

organtzation would offer freedom of choice in a way that does not exist today. 

Let us now assume that the aim of equal opportunities endeavors is to 

increase individual freedom in terms of way of life and self-definition. Seen in 

this way, does equal opportunities work become a question of individuality or 

an issue of equal importance to both sexes? 

Our universities are examples of male-dominated structures, organizations 

shaped by men on men's terms. one way of justifying equality of opportunity, 

if the aim of equal opportunities work is seen as improving the situation of the 

underrepresented sex in an existin g organization, is to say that it will increase 

individual freedom, meaning greater freedom of choice for the 

underrepresented sex. For instance, giving the underrepresented sex more 

career options. 

T9

Is there not, then, a risk in this case that working for equal opportunities will 

increase male dominance in the organization -- at the level of content -- even if 

the number of people of the underrepresented sex in the organization 

increases? In that case, there is not necessarily a change in the stereotypical 

patterns of the traditional gender structure, and the assertion will be that 

whether or not to work within the structure is the free choice of each 

individual. The individual does have more options, but in terms of content the 

various options are still defined on the basis of male terms and conditions. 

Thus at the structural level. male dominance is further consolidated.ls 

Another way of looking at equal opportunities work is to see it as a step 

towards creating a future organization structured so as to bear traces of both 

sexes. The asymmetrical power relationship between the sexes would be done 

away with, and there would be greater freedom of choice for both sexes. The 

scope of opportunities for every individual would expand. It would then be 

possible to violate the contemporary stereotypical gender order, which is so 

restrictive today in terms of enabling the individual to develop him or herself 

completely freely. 

18 Th" fo[o*ing question then arises: If the number of people of the underrepresented sex in an organization 

increases, does this necessarily mean that the content of the organization also changes so that it bears structural 

traces of two sexes? Or is what happens that the male norm is simply upheld? 

20

The gender perspective and equal opportunities work 

1. Introduction 

This text is a study of the different relationships between gender research and 

equal opportunities work in practice. At least at first glance it may seem 

surprising that we would wish to examine the problem complex relating to 

gender analysis and equal opportunities work, since from a historical point of 

view gender research grew out of women's studies and research into equal 

opportunities. However, development in both these disciplines has given rise to 

a situation in which we must, in fact, re-examine the various ties that bind them. 

The three standpoints expressed by the Swedish powers that be and described 

below form the point of departure for this section: 

1. The Swedish authorities maintain that gender research raises the quality 

of all research, for two reasons: firstly because it expands perspectives in 

scholarly research, contributes new knowledge, etc. and secondly because 

gender research encourages equality of opportunity.le 

2. The Swedish authorities maintain that encouraging coursework with a 

gender perspective is one way of putting equal opportunities into practice. The 

Higher Education Agency, for example, was commissioned by the government 

to draw up courses relating to gender for the undergraduate degree programs in 

law and economics. The government also encourages the application of the 

gender perspective in studies in all undergraduate disciplines.2o 

3. The Swedish authorities also maintain that it is possible to formulate 

equal opportunities work both with and without a gender perspective. 

These three assertions indicate three problem complexes that are often 

confused with one another. Each of them contains, in its turn, a number of 

conceptual difficulties. This text goes on to analyze these conceptual issues 

and to discuss questions of the following type: Is it implicit in equal 

opportunities work to encourage courses and research with a gender 

perspective? Is offering courses with a gender perspective one way of 

19 Offi"iul government communicatio n 1999120(nl:24, Jiimstiilldhetspolitiken inf6r 2000-taler, (.Equal 

Opportunities Entering the Twenty-First Century" p. 65). 

20 rura. p. os. 

2l

improving recruitment statistics for the underrepresented sex? And what is the 

relationship between gender research and equal opportunities work in practice. 

22

2. The gender perspective, research quality and equal opportunities 

A retrospective look at the arguments put forward by the powers that be in 

Sweden in justification of the three assertions given above provides a point of 

departure for discussing them. 

In relation to the first assertion, the assumption that gender research 

increases the overall quality of research, there are two main lines of 

argument:21 

a. Gender research increases general research quality because research using 

that perspective broadens the area of knowledge covered by any given 

discipline, enriches the self-awareness of science, expands the theoretical 

core of research, generates new knowledge and new approaches, and 

increases the number of relevant questions.22 

b. Gender research increases overall research quality because it contributes 

to greater equality of opportunity.23 This can, in turn, be justified in different 

ways: 

(i) Research based on a gender perspective makes women visible, increases 

their self-esteem and provides them with female role models. Gender research 

creates disciplines marked by greater equality of opportunity because it 

increases the number of women researchers. 

(ii) Gender research exposes sex-or-gender-related power hierarchies and 

identifies obstacles to equal opportunities, as well as contributing to enabling 

us to abolish these impediments to equal opportunities.2a 

The second point above touches on the relationship between a gender 

perspective, coursework and equal opportunities work. What makes 

encouraging the development of courses with a gender perspective part of 

equal opportunities work in practice? The idea is that by introducing the 

gender perspective in courses, we take a step towards equality of opportunity, 

because we contribute in an important way to fairer recruitment of women and 

men to all disciplines, and to efforts to break down the sexgregated labor 

market.25 

2l Offi.iul communication from government ministrie s 1996:26 Genusperspektiv i forskningen (Gender 

Perspective in Research) 

)) -- Ibid. p. 9-19. 

'r2, 

"" Ibid. p. 9-19. 

24 ruia. p. u. 

25 Offi.iut government communicatio n 199912000:24, s.65, Jiimstiilldhetspolitiken infdr 2000-taler, ("Equal 

Opportunities Entering the Twenty-First Century" p. 65). 

23

The third point touches on the relationship between gender research and 

equal opportunities work. The idea is that equal opportunities work can both be 

formulated using a gender perspective, and without using it. Thus we must 

distinguish between gender studies and equal opportunities work in practice. 

Sometimes gender becomes abuzz word in the public debates, and is uses 

interchangeably with equal opportunities This results in misunderstandings and 

ambiguities, which is why the Working Group on Equal Opportunities in 

Higher Education and Research ( known in Swedish as the "JAST" group, an 

acronym which also means "yeast") insists on the necessity of distinguishing 

between these terms. Gender is primarily a theoretical concept, and a tool for 

the analysis and description of power relationships between men and women, 

or the male and the female, at different levels in society, culture and history. 

Equal opportunities is a matter of fair representation of women and men, and 

of allowing the knowledge, experience and perspectives of both women and 

men to penetrate education and research to equivalent extents. 26 

These arguments are discussed one at a time below, beginning with the idea that 

research on gender improves the overall quatity of research. 

How is "gender research" defined? Gender research is an umbrella 

term used to denote an extensive, dynamic research field. Gender 

research distinguishes between research about women and men, where 

women or the feminine and men or the masculine are the objects of 

research, and research carried out from a gender perspective. The 

problem of how to define a gender perspective is inherent to this field 

of research, and there are various, sometimes contradictorv. 

solutions.2T 

However, the word "gender" is frequently used to designate an analytical 

tool applicable to a large number of phenomena, such as our identity, 

otganizations, relationships, institutions, laws, and texts, just to mention a few. 

In the particular context of equal opportunities, a gender perspective is often 

defined as the perspective relating to sex and power. The links between these 

26 Offi"iuf communication from government ministrie s 1997.56, Jiimstiilldhetfiir kunskap, insikt och kvalitet, 

(Equal Opportunities for Knowledge, Insight and euality, p.35). 

11 "' 

Gothlin, E., Kcin eller Genus, Nationella sekretariatetftr genusforskning,2O00. "Sex or Gender", a booklet 

based on a lecture Eva Gothlin held at the conference entitled "The gender perspective in research and 

education" (Kdnsperspektiv iforskning och underttisnlng) in Gciteborg in 1999. 

24

two terms ate highlighted, including the asymmetrical, hierarchically 

structured relationships between men and women or between what is 

considered "feminine" and what is considered "masculine". In the latter case, 

the feminine and the masculine are regarded as structures that can be borne by 

both women and men, thus shifting the focus from the individual to the 

structural level. Applying a gender perspective to equal opportunities work 

means studying the relationships between power and sex in contexts such as 

organizations. Below, the term gender perspective is used in that sense. 

Let us now return to the two lines of argument about how a gender 

perspective promotes research and raises its quality. There are two different 

ways used of legitimatising gender research: one is that its research perspective 

allows neglected areas to come to the fore, gives us new approaches, new 

knowledge, etc. The other is that gender research promotes equal 

opportunities. 

It should be clear that these two ways of legitimatizing gender research must 

not be confused. In the first case, what is being discussed is the significance of 

gender research within science and scholarship, in the second case it is a 

matter of one potential field of application of gender reseurch: using the 

knowledge gained through it in equal opportunities work in practice. I hesitate 

to claim, a priori, that gender research has an overall positive impact on 

research quality. Of course it is a good thing when research expands to new 

fields and new problem complexes. But what determines the quality of 

research is, in my view, more the content of its hypotheses and arguments, 

methods, empirical tools and analyses than its subject matter. This is as true of 

gender research as of any other research discipline. 

Is it appropriate to use equal opportunities to legitimatize gender research? 

Is doing gender research also doing equal opportunities work? Above, it is 

clear that gender research is legitimatised through equal opportunities work in 

at least two ways: in that it contributes to equality of opportunity at 

universities, and in that it provides a theoretical foundation for wellfunctioning 

equal opportunities work. 

The connection between promoting gender research and recruiting the 

underrepresented sex is not a perfectly obvious one, and it is questionable how 

much weight this argument can tolerate. Gender research may be seen as one 

way of improving equality of opportunity, in that carrying out gender research 

is one way of promoting greater equality in the research environment, and the 

recruitment of more female research scholars. However, the extension of this 

argument is based on the preconception that women should do their research 

25

from a gender perspective. Not all women researchers are gender theorists, nor 

should they be. This truism must be borne in mind. The general problem of the 

need to recruit more women into research neither can nor should be solved by 

earmarking funding for gender research. Female researchers should not, any 

more than male researchers, be isolated to any particular pigeonhole, to 

separate problems or disciplines. Nor should they be primarily financed with 

"separate" funding. Why should women have less freedom of choice? There is 

another obvious risk, that this women's niche will be sidestepped in relation to 

"mainstream" research, regarded as peripheral and far from the cutting edge of 

research. 

Moreover, the matter of who does gender research should be a genderneutral 

one. The field should be equally open to men as to women. 

Another way of using equal opportunities to Iegitimatize gender research 

arises because the results of gender research are eminently useful in equal 

opportunities work in practice. Gender research deepens our insights into the 

problem complexes surrounding equal opportunities work, which is far more 

than simply a matter of bringing an influence to bear on attitudes and 

achieving fairer representation of both sexes, it is also vital to learn more abut 

the underlying mechanisms. And not until that knowledge is applied in 

practice can we find well-functioning strategies and methods for practical 

work with equal opportunities. 

This does not, however, mean that gender research is part of equal 

opportunities work, but rather that the results of gender research are applicable 

to equal opportunities work. In other words: the findings from gender research 

provide a point of departure for carrying out successful equal opportunities 

work .28 

This insight, that the findings from gender research provide a point of 

departure for carrying out successful equal opportunities work but that they 

must not be seen as part of the work itself, is probably the underlying 

assumption of the statement of the Working Group on Equal Opportunities in 

Higher Education and Research to the effect that it is essential to distinguish 

between gender research and equal opportunities work. In the quotation above, 

gender as a research perspective is distinguished from equal opportunities 

work in practice, the latter being described as a political activity the aim of 

which is to achieve fair representation between the sexes, in such a way that 

2^8^fn"." is a more powerful thesis claiming that gender research is an essential prerequisite for well-functioning, 

effective equal opportunities work. Personally, I am inclined to agree. 

26

oth women and men will be able to leave their mark on education and 

research. 

The quotation referred to above also leads us to ask whether or not gender 

research is normative. I discuss this question below, passing first through the 

area where the question of how to define a feminist researcher is discussed. 

Ulla M. Holm provides the following answer: 

A feminist researcher declares her stance in terms of women's politics, 

i.e., she takes feminist stands and is a spokesperson for ieminist 

issues. Her research has explicitly normative aims. Her political 

involvement means speaking out in favor of the liberation of *o*1 

from various forms of oppression and discrimination. Her theoretical 

considerations rest on this involvement and are an indispensable part 

of this liberation process.2e 

Here, Holm intertwines two ideas that may also be separated, In her view, a 

feminist researcher is characterized by her political involvement, and in doing 

feminist research she strives for women's liberation. Thus, the aim of her 

research is emancipative. Moreover, a feminist's research is based on 

analytical or theoretical perspectives rooted in her politicat involvement. 

According to Holm, this is a theoretical gender perspective. All feminists reject 

androcentric perspectives, and some feminists also want to see gynocentric 

perspectives developed.3o 

Let us now make an analytical distinction between basing one's research on 

some kind of theoretical gender perspective and working for women's political 

or social rights in society. We might initially call these two activities 

"feminism in research theory" and 

"feminism in politics". 

These two terms may be combined in four different ways, characterizing 

four kinds of researchers: 

1. Researchers who are feminists in both the theoretical and the political 

senses, and whose research often has explicitly emancipative aims. 

29 Hot., lJ., Modrande och praxis,Daidalos 1993, (..Mothering and praxis,,, p.33). 

30 ruia. p.tz. 

In this quotation, it is understood that women researchers are being discussed. Can a man be a feminist? Cannot 

both women and men make analyses on the basis of a gender persfective and work to promote equality of 

opportunity? Or is it necessary.to have personal experience ofbeing subordinated owing to on"', ,"* in order to 

call oneself a feminist, in which case men are excluded. Shall we .u=y tnut feminism."qoir., personal experience 

but that there can be gender researchers of both sexes? 

27

2. Researchers who are feminists in relation to theory but not in a political 

sense. They will tend to make descriptive analyses based on a 

perspective of gender theory, without normative objectives. 

3. Researchers who are not feminists in either sense. 

4. Researchers who are not feminists in the theoretical sense but who are 

feminists in the political sense. Their research is not emancipative in its 

objectives, but these researchers wish to work to promote women's 

liberation and the fulfillment of women's rights in other ways, for 

instance through different kinds of equal opportunities work, through 

joining women's networks, acting as mentors, etc. 

It should be pointed out this set of analytical distinctions. In reality, most people 

who refer to themselves as feminists are probably both theoretically and 

politically engaged. Calling oneself a feminist is a declaration of political 

ambitions. Still, the distinctions have their function. 

It is important to keep these four categories clear and not to confuse them. 

To begin with, let us state that gender researchers are not necessarily intent on 

working for equal opportunities. Gender research rtray have entirely different 

aims. It is perfectly possible, and in my view quite suitable, to have a term 

such as "gender research" that does not contains specifically normative aims. 

Not until we do will we be able to highlight the problem complex containing 

the field of tension between gender analysis and equal opportunities work. 

There is no doubt that gender analyses do have their uses in equal 

opportunities work in practice, and can provide a solid foundation for such 

work. But gender research per se does not have to be normative. It can be 

carried out as the pure pursuit of knowledge. 

In summary, the results of gender research both can and should be applied to 

equal opportunities work in practice. However, there is some question as to 

whether equal opportunities work in practice must encourage gender research. 

In practice, equal opportunities work requires not only the gender perspective 

but other perspectives as well. Equal opportunities work rests on an eclectic 

theoretical foundation that also includes organizational theory, didactics, 

sociology and psychology. 

What, then, does it mean to pursue equal opportunities work from a gender 

perspective? For example, the results of gender research may be used to 

confirm that power is unfairly distributed to the advantage of men, that 

women's reality is often described as an exception to the male norm, and that 

the relationship between the sexes is in flux. And not until we have that 

background can we make it clear why equal opportunities work is necessary, 

28

or explain what fundamental changes in society would have to take place if we 

were to introduce a fair distribution of power between the sexes. Although our 

gender analysis was not performed to promote equal opportunities, it still gives 

rise to questions such as the following: Why is there inequality today? Should 

things not change? What would the consequences of such changes be? 

Equal opportunities work without a gender perspective often means that the 

number of people of the underrepresented sex in the (existing) organization in 

question increases, for example through recruitment campaigns. As we have 

seen, such measures may be justified both in terms of justice and of quality 

improvements. 

Imposing a gender perspective on equal opportunities work means working 

to ensure changes with a view to altering the structure of the organization and 

throwing its established norms and aims into question. This is a deeper 

approach, in which equal opportunities work is based on an understanding of 

both the lack of equality in society and of the mechanisms that pose obstacles 

to equality and that uphold unfair relationships between the sexes. This 

understanding is vital to achieving sustainable equality of opportunity-and real 

change in an organization. 

What are the actual differences between working with equal opportunities 

with and without a gender perspective? We can elucidate this by examining an 

example, using an explanatory model known as " the male as normative". 

Equal opportunities work without a gender perspective can, for instance, mean 

not taking account of the male norm. The practical consequence is often that 

the "shortcomings" of women or girls are highlighted: their lack of interest in 

technology and the natural sciences, their inability to "help themselves to their 

fair share", their disinterest in holding management positions, ad infinitum. 

And it would then be these "faults" that were used to determine how equal 

opportunities work in practice was formulated. Networks of mentors would be 

set up, recruitment campaigns waged with a view to rectifying the problems 

and thus increasing the numbers of the underrepresented sex, just to mention a 

few examples. 

Working with equal opportunities on the basis of a gender perspective, on 

the other hand, would mean considering the problem complex surrounding the 

male norm, and would cast an entirely different light on the matter. The 

problem would no longer be regarded as a problem of women as individuals, 

but rather as a problem in the organization and the surrounding society. This 

would open people's eyes to the general structural discrimination of women 

and women's experience. The aim of equal opportunities work would then be 

29

to bring about comprehensive changes in the organization as one step in an indepth 

transformation of society. 

To me, it seems indubitably to be the case that the gender perspective 

provides a foundation for well-functioning equal opportunities work. However, 

we must not place blind faith in this perspective. As mentioned above, 

effective equal opportunities work that successfully increases the room for 

rnaneuver of the underrepresented sex also requires perspectives from 

disciplines other than gender research, such as organizational theory and 

individual psychology. 

3. Gender research, awareness of sex and gender and education 

To begin with, let us consider what it means to be aware of sex and gender 

when teaching, to organize the teaching situation with that awareness in 

mind.31 

It is often maintained in this context that there must be equal and equally 

self-evident room for both female and male perspectives in every teaching 

situation. This requires awareness of elements that may be sexually 

discriminating, on the part of teachers and students, in textbooks and in the 

classroom situation, and of the invisibility (and masking) of women's 

knowledge and perspectives in the textbooks as well as in the classroom 

situation. Awareness of sex and gender in the classroom means ensuring that 

the reading list contains works by both men and women, as well as ensuring 

that the students have teachers of both sexes. In addition, the roles of both 

female and male researchers and their work in the discipline must be clarified, 

and teaching forms and methods must take the learning needs, knowledge gaps 

and learning strategies of both women and men into account. 

How should the integration of awareness of sex and gender in teaching be 

motivated? It can be done both in terms of equal opportunities, and without 

referring to equality of opportunity at all. One way of justifying the need for 

this awareness without factoring in equal opportunities is to be purely didactic 

about it. Above, we have described the view that different educational 

3 I In this context, the authorities use expressions like 

"teaching with a gender perspective", see, for example, 

Official Government Communication l999l2OC{J -24, Jrimstiilldhetspolitiken inftir 2000+aler, ('Equal 

Opportunities Policy for the Twenty-first Century'', p. 65). My reasoning is based on a distinction between 

organizing teaching with an awareness ofsex and gender, in other words taking sex/gender into account when 

planning teaching, and teaching with a gender perspective. These mean two different things. One is teaching 

about gender research, the other is analyzing the teaching situation from a gender perspective. 

30

approaches need to be used for girls and women than for boys and men, so that 

they can develop their competence and learn in the optimal way. Taking 

awareness of sex and gender into account in the teaching situation is also 

rooted in the idea that the needs of the two sexes are different in the classroom 

situation. Girls define problems differently than boys, ask different questions 

and imagine different solutions, and so they also need different educational 

approaches. 

Another didactic argument for being aware of sex and gender in the teaching 

situation is based on the insight that good teaching is teaching that integrates 

new experience and knowledge with a previously existing worldview. In other 

words, the student or pupil must be able to relate what the teacher is driving at 

to him or herself and to personal experience. To do this I must feel that the 

experience of my sex is represented in the classroom. This is also a 

prerequisite for my being able to be sure of my own perspective, to come to 

know that basis of my own thinking and argumentation. If I am not familiar 

with it, I will not be able to develop into an independent, critical thinker. 

It is also possible to justify the importance of awareness of sex and gender 

in the teaching situation by saying that it promotes equality of opportunity. 

Equal opportunities as a matter of justice require that school be a place where 

girls and are treated equivalently. In this respect, equivalent treatment means 

having respect for the fact that girls and women need to be taught in different 

ways than do boys and men. This, too, requires awareness of sex and gender in 

the teaching situation. As we saw in the section on equal opportunities, quality 

and justice, it is possible to argue that equality of opportunity generates higher 

quality in that it leads to skill enhancement. Introducing an awtueness of sex 

and gender into the classroom situation can also be seen as a way of utilizing 

the female competence the society of the future will need. Female competence 

is an unexploited reserve on the labor market. And this is precisely how the 

powers that be justify the introduction of gender into schools, as a way of 

recruiting the underrepresented sex. 

It is worth pointing out how the differences between the sexes are, once 

again, a theme in the arguments relating to awareness of sex and gender and 

education. Does this eventually turn into a trap, when we insist on justifying 

awareness of sex and gender in the classroom in terms of the inherent 

differences between the sexes? 

Let us distinguish between awareness of sex and gender in the classroom 

and investigating the teaching situation with a gender perspective. How do we 

define the latter? In my view, there are at least two options: teaching about 

3I

gender research and analyzing the teaching situation through a gender 

perspective, for example regarding a certain subject area through the gender 

perspective or analyzing the classroom situation through the gender 

perspective, by which I mean applying the perspective of power relations to 

the sexes in the contexts of seminar culture, knowledge dissemination, reading 

lists, etc. This is a way of shedding light on the problem complex of sex and 

gender instead of (unreflectingly?) taking fundamental differences between the 

sexes for granted. New light is shed on the differences between the sexes by 

using the explanatory model of the male norm, for instance. 

Both teaching about gender research and examining the teaching situation 

through the gender perspective may be related back to equal opportunities 

work, because both these activities pave the way for gender awareness and 

insights about the need for equal opportunities work. They also pave the way 

for critical attitudes and approaches, which, in turn, encourage independent, 

critical thinking of all kinds. 

32

Sexual harassment and equal opportunities 

work 

l.Introduction 

On I July 1998 the provisions of the Swedish Equal Opportunities Act 

regulating the obligation of an employer to prevent and counteract sexual 

harassment at the workplace were made more stringent. In short, the aim of this 

amendment was to accentuate the fact that sexual harassment in working life is 

not acceptable, to introduce a definition of sexual harassment. and to stress the 

obligations of the employer to implement active measures to prevent, counteract 

and deal with sexual harassment. A regulation was added making the employer 

liable to pay damages if no measures are taken in relation to reports of sexual 

harassment. 

This means that work to prevent sexual harassment is, today, a legislated 

aspect of equal opportunities work in Sweden. But what should an individual 

actively working with equal opportunities do when the problem of sexual 

harassment arises? Is it a legal issue? A comprehensive problem in the work 

environment? A matter of knowledge? Or is it a question of knowing how to 

handle and report sexual harassment? 

2. Theory and practice 

The aim of this text is to discuss sexual harassment against the backdrop of 

working with equal opportunities in practice. 

How does one formulate a theory about what happens in practice? This is a 

highly problematic question. It is easy, for instance, either to 

overintellectualize the matter, to shroud it in mystification, or to oversimplify 

it in terms of black-and-white dichotomies. How can such pitfalls -- the gross 

dichotomies, the oversimplified views, and the altogether-too-heady 

expositions about practices -- be avoided? They are often related to some kind 

of theoretical block, such as trying to use one's pet theory as too sweeping a 

point of departure, or not modifying an initial hypothesis after an encounter 

with concrete experience. 

To formulate a useable theory about practice, one should oscillate between 

practical and theoretical endeavors, as well as testing various theories on the 

same phenomenon. It is vital to take account of the full range of concrete 

experience to be analyzed, rather than disregarding that which may be in 

33

conflict with the theory being applied. I prefer an eclectic method in which 

different theories are used to deal with different aspects of the experience 

under study. 

Sometimes it is necessary to combine concepts from different areas in 

creative ways, or to invent new ones, in order to develop an appropriate 

conceptual apparatus. It may be necessary to "start from scratch", by using 

concrete experience as the platform and then "designing" the analysis so 

different aspects of this experience is reflected and described. The objective is 

to analyze the practice in a manner that both does justice to the empirical 

factors and avoids both overintellectualizaton and over simplifications. 

The expression "sexual harassment" is used, as described below, to 

designate a large number of extremely varied phenomena. In my view, this 

makes it vital to put forward a multifaceted analysis before formulating an 

action plan, if it is to work in practice. Moreover, this analysis must be much 

more than the product of deskwork. It must emanate from experience of people 

working with sexual harassment. 

3. What is sexual harassment? 

How is sexual harassment defined? We find the following definition in section 6 

of the Swedish Equal Opportunities Act: 

It is incumbent upon the employer to take measures to prevent and 

counteract any employee's being subjected to sexual harassment or to 

the negative consequences of someone's being reported for sexual 

harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as any unwelcome behavior 

related to sex and gender or unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature 

that violates the integrity of the employee at the workplace.32 

The expression 

"sexual harassment" is used to denote two different phenomena: 

sex-or-gender-related insults and offensive actions of a sexual nature. One 

example of the first type of sexual harassment is when someone is bullied, made 

invisible, not take seriously, worked against, or ignored owing to his or her sex. 

Offensive actions of a sexual nature may include sexual allusions in comments, 

sexual jokes, touching, offensive looks or requests for sexual favors in exchange 

for reward or payment. 

32 Th" content of this section is based on the preparatory work for a Swedish government draft bill 1997 /98:55 

Kv innofrid ("Protection of Women"). 

34

The core of the definition of sexual harassment lies in the actions being 

unwelcome by the individual at whom they are aimed. It is not possible to state 

exactly how the person affected should indicate that the behavior of the other 

party is not desirable. It may be done verbally or in writing. In some cases, 

however, it is clear even without anything being done by the person affected 

that the behavior of the subjecting party is undesirable and entails sexual 

harassment. 

The definition of sexual harassment is based on a subjective criterion: it is 

up to the person being subjected to the behavior to decide whether or not it is 

desirable and what is offensive. This subjective criterion is based on the right 

of every individual to integrity and self-determination. 

Why do we legislate about sexual harassment at all? Sexual harassment 

violates the right of the individual to personal integrity and self-determination. 

This does not only affect the person being subjected to it, but impacts on the 

entire workplace. Harassment leads to tension in the atmosphere, and to many 

people feeling insecure. People are upset, sense that there is some kind of 

abusive situation, and withdraw. At such a workplace, not only the person 

being subjected to the behavior in question works less than optimally -- even 

his or her workmates' capacities to perform at work are affected. In other 

words: productivity and creativity diminish. 

Men harass women, women harass men, men harass men and women harass 

women. Studies, however, indicate that the most frequent type of sexual 

harassment is when men harass women. For this reason it is asserted in the 

preparatory work for a draft bill submitted to the Swedish parliament and 

entitled Kvinnofrid ("Protection of Women") that it is important to consider 

sexual harassment from the perspective of sex/gender and power relations. 

Sexual harassment is an abuse of power on the part of the perpetrator, and it is 

also one aspect of more systematic oppression of women. This is what 

distinguishes it from bullying in general. Sexual harassment is a means of 

keeping women subordinate. For this reason, too, sexual harassment is 

considered an issue related to equal opportunities, which explains why the law 

on sexual harassment is an amendment to the Equal Opportunities Act. 

It is incumbent upon every employer to take measures to prevent and 

counteract any employee's being subjected to sexual harassment. Moreover, 

the employer may be held liable to pay damages if he does not institute an 

investigation when someone is reported for sexual harassment. The employer 

must clearly take the stand that sexual harassment will not be tolerated at the 

35

workplace. There must be a policy and routines for how reports of sexual 

harassment are to be dealt with, and the employees must know it. 

It is first and foremost up to the person who has been subjected to ensure 

that the employer is aware that sexual harassment has occurred. However, 

many people fear that they will not be believed. For this reason, it may be up 

to a workmate or a trade union representative to make what is going on known 

to the employer. If the employer is to be obligated by law to act, on pain of 

being held liable, the person who has been subjected must at least confirm the 

occuffence of the sexual harassment. 

In the preparatory work for the Equal Opportunities Act, it is pointed out 

that what measures should be taken when an individual experiences that he or 

she is begin sexually harassed must be determined from case to case. However, 

in all cases, the employer must immediately speak with the parties concerned 

with a view to clarifying the circumstances surrounding the alleged 

harassment. It is also stated that the employer must try to obtain some idea of 

the veracity of the information given by both parties, and decide what 

measures are needed to prevent further occurrences. 

4. Sexually offensive behavior 

Let us now reexamine the definition of sexual harassment in somewhat greater 

detail, focusing on three of its main components: 

"harassment","unwelcome" 

and "unwelcome behavior related to sex./gender". 

The verb "to harass" normally implies conscious and intentional subjection 

of an individual to ongoing discomfort. At any workplace, there are, however, 

always actions of a sexually harassing nature but where the person performing 

them does not intentionally mean to harass. The conscious intention may be 

"to be nice" or to seek contact. But even when the conscious intention is 

"to be 

nice", the function of the action may be an offensive one, keeping the person 

toward whom it is aimed from accomplishing things and from being 

comfortable at the workplace. Although sexual harassment may be perfectly 

conscious, it is often unconscious behaviot'3, and it is important to 

acknowledge the gray zone of possible unconscious behavior. And the 

intention of the harassing party may also be misinterpreted by the person at 

whom it is aimed. For instance, there are cases where the one party has had no 

33 Fo, u more detailed discussion of conscious and unconscious aspects of sexual harassment, see Mark, E., Vad 

dr sexuella trakasserier? ( "What is Sexual Harrassment?" in) Hriften ftr kritiska studier no.4, 1997 . 

35

scxual intention at all, but where the action has been interpreted as sexual by 

tbc person toward whom it was aimed, possibly as a kind of wish fulfillment. 

When an action is said to be unwelcome, this does not always mean it was 

not desired by the person at whom it was aimed. And what about the person 

who is being insulted -- does he or she always feel offended? Probably not. It 

is not uncommon that a person subjected to sexual harassment considers that 

behavior a natural part of the patriarchal culture, while an outsider may think it 

would be perfectly in order for that person to feel harassed. It is also possible 

that the person who was subjected will, later in life, retrospectively change his 

or her opinion and decide that he or she was truly being insulted at the time.3a 

In that case, has the subjective criterion been fulfilled? The person being 

harassed will absolutely not want to file either an informal or a formal report. 

This happens very frequently 

Unwelcome behavior relating to a persons' se>r/gender may be referred to as 

"sexually offensive behavior". Sexually offensive behavior is not usually a 

conscious intent to offend, is not always physical behavior, and is not always 

perceived as offensive by the person at whom it is aimed. Nonetheless, 

sexually offensive behavior is a serious problem in the work environment. Yet 

it is not always regarded as such. Such behavior often consists of quite small 

comments and innuendos, not per se always serious enough to be very upset 

about. Moreover, it is so common that we cannot reasonably be expected to 

react to every single occunence. Often, sexually offensive behavior is even 

part of the workplace culture and climate. But an individual who is 

consistently or frequently subjected to sexually offensive behavior is deeply 

affected by it in the long run, irrespective of the extent to which he or she is 

aware of it at the time. He or she may simply react with a feeling of not being 

happy at the workplace, of fatigue, of lack of energy, of sensing that he or she 

is unwelcome, of diminished self-confidence, etc. Small insults have 

cumulative effects, and eventually the reaction is explosive, at which point 

others may react with surprise and uncertainty: isn't this person exaggerating? 

The small incident that triggered the reaction may not have been very serious. 

However, it must be seen as part of a cumulative series of sexual insults and 

innuendos. 

This kind of sexually offensive behavior is not what one normally associates 

with sexual harassment. In "Protection of Women", the expression "sexual 

harassment" is described as sometimes misleading. It must be recalled that in 

34 ttid. p. zt. 

37

this context "sexual" means related both to an individual's sex/gender and to 

the sex act, as well as related to gender, and includes everything from sexually 

offensive behavior and language to any number of insulting actions somehow 

having to do with sex/gender and sexual affitiation. This accepted term is also 

used in the present context, in awareness of its limitations. 

Clearly, there are problems associated with using it. Not only may the word 

"sexual" exacerbate communication about contexts where non-sexual acts fall 

under the umbrella of a concept including the word sexual, but in addition this 

may make working with sexual harassment more difficult, in that it is often a 

matter of dealing with innuendo than with specifically sex-or-gender-related 

acts. There is also a risk of temptation to oversexualize the problem in efforts 

to be taken seriously. 

The main issue at our workplaces is related not to sexual acts but to more or 

less conscious sexually offensive behavior, often more of a verbal than a 

physical nature. This also makes it difficult to rectify, since the change would 

have to involve a basic attitude shift, perhaps not at the workplace so much as 

in society as a whole. 

Sexually offensive behavior, sometimes unconsciously performed and 

sometimes not even perceived by the person at whom it is aimed, is an 

expression of institutionalized attitudes and power relations. It is subtle but 

highly effective, and makes it more difficult for the underrepresented sex to be 

free and unencumbered at the workplace. In reality, sexually offensive 

behavior undermines equality between the sexes and this, in my view, is what 

should be accentuated when working to defeat sexual harassment. 

5. Equal opportunities work and the law 

Like much other legislation, the legal stipulations prohibiting sexual harassment 

give rise to difficulties of interpretation when they are implemented. As do most 

legal acts, it contains ambiguities which have to be clarified in concrete cases 

when the law is to be applied. Praxis is what defines this kind of prohibition. Is 

the fact that the law is based on a subjective criterion to be seen to mean that the 

person against whom the offense has been committed also has to admit feeling 

sexually harassed? The main rule applied in the administration of justice is that 

every individual must take responsibility for his or her own actions. But that is 

on the assumption that we act consciously and intentionally, and there are 

exceptions to this rule, laws in relation to which we nray be held responsible 

even for unintentional, unconscious actions. The ban on sexual harassment is 

38

particularly problematic, because such harassment takes place in situations 

where the parties involved have highly differing opinions regarding what is 

going on along the spectrum ranging from kind, encouraging attitudes to 

sexually offensive behavior. How are matters decided in a court of law when 

one person's word stands against another's? 

The preparatory work for the Equal Opportunities Act indicates that it is to 

be up to the person being subjected to the behavior to decide whether or not it 

is acceptable, and to define what is offensive. Are we to read this as meaning 

that the way one human being approaches another may only be defined as 

sexual harassment if and only if the one party goes on trying to approach the 

other after an initial rejection? And if so, what are we to do about the very 

common reaction among people who are subjected to such behavior: feelings 

of guilt and shame and the concomitant silence? 

Although the legal complexities of these issues are beyond the scope of this 

booklet, let us make a cursory examination of the relationship between the law 

and equal opportunities work. Of course, pursuing equal opportunities work at 

one's organization includes ensuring that the Equal Opportunities Act is 

complied with. But that is not sufficient. We must also see the legislation as an 

opening to work with all sex and gender related problems in the work 

environment, in the broadest and deepest sense of the terms. If an unwelcome 

approach cannot be regarded as a violation of the law, does that necessarily 

make it unproblematic in terms of equality of opportunity? Of course not. 

Another intention stated in the preliminary work for the legislation is that 

the Act is to safeguard individual integrity at work and in the workplace. 

Although sexually offensive behavior that takes place outside the workplace is 

not criminaltzed under the Equal Opportunities Act, it may be punishable by 

law pursuant to the Penal Code. If a teacher is at a party with his or her 

students, is he or she on duty? If he or she makes a sexual approach to a 

student, is that criminal, if not as a violation of the Equal Opportunities Act 

then perhaps under the heading of "sexual molestation"? And if it is not 

punishable by law at all, what can we do about it in our capacity as equal 

opportunities officials at our places of work? 

Working with sexual harassment must mean more than ensuring that the 

Equal Opportunities Act is complied with. In my view, it is vital that we not 

become fixated with the idea of filing formal reports or making informal 

verbal ones, or with wondering about what punishment might fit the offense, 

or with identifying the perpetrator. All these things may, of course, be 

necessary, but truly comprehensive equal opportunities work must focus on 

39

pteventiott, on intotncration, asd os creatrng a gsod. scsrk e\xiron$\ent tor both 

sexes. 

Let us return for a moment to the example of the teacher who attends a party 

with his or her students. Even if it is not punishable by law to approach a 

student it is, nevertheless, often eminently inappropriate in the given situation. 

No one can forbid two consenting adults from falling in love, but because a 

student is in a dependency relation to his or her teacher, it is certainly in order 

to discuss the inappropriateness of that kind of relationship. Is a pupil or a 

student able to say no to a teacher? 

What are the best ways of pursuing equal opportunities work? In the section 

above on equal opportunities, quality and justice, I stated that one way is by 

implementing concrete measures to ensure compliance with the Equal 

Opportunities Act at any existing organization. Another is to regard equal 

opportunities work as one part of the process of reforming an organization. 

Equal opportunities work as part of a process of change is basically a matter of 

dissemination of knowledge. 

Changing an organization so that it better reflects equality of opportunity is 

often a matter of training the people who work there so they become aware of 

the structures and relationships to which they have previously been blind: 

introducing a perspective relating to unfair treatment of people on the basis of 

their sex/gender with a view to creating an organization the content of which 

reflects traces of two sexes, and where work is carried out under terms and 

conditions established by both sexes. What knowledge, then, is required in 

order to pursue successful equal opportunities work? 

To a large extent, the relations between the sexes at any given workplace are 

largely unconscious and unconsidered rather than being part of any thoughtthrough 

approach. Concrete measures taken with a view to improving equality 

of opportunity have very little effect as long as this remains the case. 

Workplaces need to develop knowledge processes that raise awareness of these 

unconscious attitudes, and until they do so there will be no motivation for 

implementing measures to improve equal opportunities. This essential and also 

preventive work entails explaining the often covert mechanisms underlying 

sexually offensive behavior and comments. We need to investigate the 

mechanisms that lead to inequality being maintained, and to take an open stand 

against the abuse of power associated with sexual harassment. Another field of 

knowledge that is a prerequisite for equal opportunities work is gender 

analysis, the ability to see the world from the perspectives of sex/gender and 

power. 

40

6. Sexual harassment and the gender perspective 

Regarding sexual harassment from a gender perspective (defined as a sex/gender 

and power perspective) is rewarding in many ways. Such a perspective sees 

sexual harassment as a way for the overrepresented sex to exercise power over 

the underrepresented sex, and to keep its members in a subordinate position. The 

common denominator is the very idea that sexual harassment entails various 

means of exercising power. It is oppression of a member of the underrepresented 

sex so that he or she feels insulted, threatened, frightened, humiliated, powerless 

and compelled into obedience. As we have seen above, this is not always 

intentional, conscious exercise of power, but can just as easily be unintentional 

and unconscious. 

Sexual harassment often takes place in a situation where power is unevenly 

distributed between the sexes, and where the male sex is hierarchically 

superior to the female sex. As men tend to be more often in power positions, 

they are most often also the ones to commit sexual harassment. Moreover, the 

person subjected to the harassment is often in a dependency relation to the 

individual doing the harassing, who may be an advisor, a teacher, a supervisor 

or someone in a managerial position. These are also often people who are in 

the know and whose jobs include helping others to develop and learn. These 

individuals are often automatically treated with respect and trust, as well as 

sometimes admiration simply by virtue of their positions, and it is easy to take 

advantage of such a position.3s 

In equal opportunities contexts, the debate around sex/gender has often 

focused on the hypothesis that there is a supra-individual level, a "gender 

order". One central idea in this context is that the structures a"re stronger than 

the individual, and if the individual is replaced, the structures will remain. This 

may reveal itself, for instance, in the fact that women in management positions 

sometimes also prove to be harassers, as well as men. Quite simply, it is 

inherent to the structure for people in managerial positions to behave in a 

certain way. A structural gender perspective provides one explanation of how 

harassment can be "passed down" at a workplace, that certain ways of acting 

and behaving are tied to a particular position. 

If an individual is subjected to sexual harassment and brings it up, either 

formally or informally, it is common for the management to react by claiming 

35 Th"r. may, however, be an element of sexual harassment in other relationships as well, for instance the 

harassing party may be the subordinate one, for instance when a students harasses his or her teacher. 

41

that the person in question is particularly problematic. The gender perspective 

shows that, instead, the problem is about the general structure of the 

workplace. 

People involved in working to combat sexual harassment know from 

experience that the main problem is not the one people tend to be concerned 

about -- that there will be unfounded reports of sexual harassment. Instead, the 

main problem is the compact silence of the sexually harassed. Many fewer 

repofts of sexual harassment are lodged than would be reflective of the actual 

occurence of harassment. This silence can also be at least partially explained 

through the gender perspective as a perspective relating to sex/gender and 

power. The harassed individual is often in a dependency position in relation to 

the harasser, is often in a subordinate position in the power relationship. The 

fear of retaliation is great in such a situation. But other perspectives than 

simply the gender perspective are necessary if we are to analyze sexual 

harassment in a way that opens up for equal opportunities work in practice. 

An institutionalized position may be held by different individuals. The 

position is a socially-established pattern of action and must be distinguished 

from the individual holding it. Although there is something to be said for 

highlighting the institutionalized position rather than the individual, it may be 

jut as fruitful to do the opposite, and emphasize the role of the individual at the 

expense of the institutionalized position. 

Although it is true that, consciously or unconsciously, we do take over 

attitudes associated with different institutionalized positions, there is also a 

personal dimension in terms of how the individual responds to the expectations 

associated with different social positions. We have the freedom to choose our 

way of relating to social expectations: we may adopt them unthinkingly, we 

may consciously accept them, we may revolt against them, etc. 

In awareness of the ambiguity of this situation, let us then distinguish 

between the gender perspective in a structural sense and gender as an aspect of 

our identity, and let us also distinguish between power in a structural sense and 

power in a phenomenological sense. 

7. Power in the structural and phenomenological senses 

Imposing a gender perspective means using se>

analysis of sexual harassment to use the gender perspective at the structural level 

in the form of a perspective relating to sex/gender and power. 

This reveals a structural imbalance between the sexes in an organization. 

The organization is run by men and is shaped on the basis of their needs. 

Sexual harassment is one of the mechanisms underpinning the maintenance of 

this male supremacy, and is an example of what happens when the freedom of 

maneuver of the underrepresented sex is reduced and controlled. What we are 

now discussing is sex/gender at the structural level, although there are, of 

course, individual women and men whose actions will not correspond to this 

description. 

Human identity is extremely complex. We are corporeal beings, 

autonomous agents, social, communicators, etc.36 When we relate gender to 

our identity, we must examine the relationship between sex/gender and each of 

these aspects. And they must be examined both individually and in their 

interrelations. For instance, regarding the relationship between gender and 

socialization gives rise to other analytical problems than examining the 

relationship between gender and autonomy. In addition, we must distinguish 

between gender in the structural sense and gender as one aspect of human 

identity. 

Above, we have discussed power at the structural level, for instance power 

in its capacity as the influence of the organization on its members when it 

comes to jargon or the social atmosphere. Sexual harassment is often, in fact, 

part of that jargon or atmosphere. 

Moving on to examine sex/gender as one aspect of our identity at the level 

of the individual psyche, the discussion of power shifts to a different level. 

Here, what is at issue is how we experience power, i.e. power as apprehended 

"from inside". This may be referred to as power in the phenomenological 

sense, power as perceived through our experience. Let us now link power in 

the phenomenological sense to sexual harassment. How is this form of exercise 

of power experienced 

"from inside"? 

Naturally, a person subjected to sexual harassment may react in any number 

of different ways, and there are risks associated with generalizing. However, it 

is not unusual for the situation to be experienced as uncertain and vague, in 

spite of the belief that we "know" what things are like for the underrepresented 

sex in an organization characterized by inequality. A person subjected to 

harassment often loses his or her footing and becomes confused. He or she 

36 See Mark, Eva., Siiitvbilder och jagkonstitution,Acta Philosophica Gothoburgensia, no.7, 1998. ("Selfimages 

and Ego Constitution") 

43

turns the blame inward, is ashamed, is afraid of reprisals, does not trust her or 

her own experience, and protects the perpetrator. There may also be some 

resistance to admitting that one is a "victim" of unfair treatment. It is both a 

difficult and a painful insight in itself to admit that one is being treated 

unjustly. Human beings also possess a certain healthy resistance to being 

defined as victims. 

A frequent result of resisting the insight that one is being subjected to 

structural injustice is that one ceases to trust one's own observations, feelings 

and thoughts, and begins to regard some side of oneself -- such as poor selfconfidence, 

the idea that one is incompetent, etc. -- as being at the root of the 

problem. 

The relatively small number of both formal reports and informal complaints 

lodged is mainly attributed to the fact that the person being subjected to the 

harassment faults him or herself with the problem. Another factor is the way in 

which sexual harassment has become a more or less accepted element of an 

organization's culture, so the person often feels there will be no help 

forthcoming. 

8. Gender, socialization and autonomy 

One consequence of using gender in the structural sense is that superiority and 

subordination of positions in a hierarchy are accentuated, and the exercise of 

power associated with this phenomenon becomes clear. The following 

stereotype appears: the female is subordinate, powerless and subjected to 

various forms of more or less covert exercise of power. The male is typically 

superior, has freedom of action, and is in possession of both formal and informal 

power. 

There is a clear risk in this respect that the gender perspective will result in 

an exaggeration of the way we discuss women as victims: the victims of 

oppression, the victims of failure, limitations and narrow options. In addition 

to which we will regard the surrounding society as oppressive and 

discriminating. 

We live in a world permeated by neither justice nor equality. If we are to 

achieve a society where equal opportunities reign, there is no question that we 

must point out the incongruities and develop satisfactory tools with which to 

analyze them. The gender perspective in the structural sense is one such 

instrument. But the result of such analyses must not be a policy of discontent 

which lacks clout and is associated with bitterness over lost opportunities. 

44

In this context, gender must be highlighted as one aspect of our identity, and 

we must see its relationship to the autonomy aspect of the ego of every 

individual. We must also stress that woman is a human being with freedom to 

act, an independent agent who can bring an influence to bear. We must then 

see that sexual harassrnent is, precisely, an impediment to action, a restriction 

on freedom of action. 

Our behavior is rooted both in socialization and autonomy, to different 

extents and in different ways for every individual. Certain socially-determined 

positions imply very little autonomy. There are occasions on which we 

unreflectingly fulfill the expectations of others and act as if we were virtually 

"socially determined". But there are other occasions on which we act with 

great independence and in violation of social conventions and expectations. 

Of course, not everything is possible. We live in a world that restricts our 

options for action. To some extent, these restrictions are attributable to the 

unequal conditions applying to women and men. This is the context in which 

we, as agents, can act. But we can also change the context in which we 

operate. This is the aim of working with sexual harassment: to change the 

work environment to one in which such offenses do not occur. 

It is possible to reform basic structures, both in an organization and in 

society as a whole. But doing so is extremely demanding and requires 

accepting the notion that things could be different, analyzing the situation and 

being able to see its opportunities, possessing the capacity to bring about 

change, and having the opportunity to utilize this ability. 

To a large extent, equal opportunities work with a view to combating sexual 

harassment is about circulating information that will enable every individual to 

personally analyze the situation in order to open up to efforts to achieve 

change. Such an analysis can give a person who is being harassed the power 

and the energy to act instead of remaining in an enervating state of confusion. 

And it may sow the seeds of self-insight in the harasser. 

+>

References 

Ds 1994:98 Vi rir alla olika 

Ds 1994: l3O Kartkiggning och uniirdering av jcimstrilldhetsprojekt inom 

univ ersitet och hd g skolor 

Ds 1996:26, Genusperspektiv i forskningen 

Ds 1997:56 Jrimstrilldhetfdr kunskap, insikt och kvalitet 

Gannerud, E., & wernersson, vad lever vi f6r? omjiimsfiilldhet som frihet 

eller tving, SOU 1997:158 

Gothlin, E., Kcin eller Genus, Nationella sekretariatetf6r genusforskning, 

2000. Skriften bygger pi en fcirel[sning av Eva Gothlin som framfordes 

vid konferensen Kdnsperspektiv iforskning och undervisning i Gdteborg 

1999. 

Holm, U., Modrande och praxis, Daidalos 1993 

Mark, E., Vad iir sexuella trakasserier? Hdften ft)r kritiska studier, nr.4, 7997 

Mark, 8., Sj cilvbilde r o ch j agkonstitution, Acta philosophica 

Gothoburgensia, m.7, 1998 

Nutek R 1999:19, Jiimstrilldhet & Lonsamhet 

Proposition 1993194:147 Delad makt, delat ansvar 

Proposition 1994195:164 Jrimstcilldhet mellan kvinnor och mrin inom 

utbildningsomr&det 

Proposition 1997 /98:55 Kvinnofrid. 

Re g erin gens skrivel se 1996 / 97 : 4 | J rims t iill dhe t s p o lit iken 

Regeringens skrivelse 199912000:24 Jiimstrilldhetspolitiken infdr 2000-talet 

Wahl, A., Fdretagsledning som konstruktion av manlighet, 

Kv innov e t ens kapli g tidskrift, 1996l t 

46

GOTEBORG 

UNIVERSITY

Equal Opportunities Work - Theories about Practice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?